Ex Parte POOCH et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1996-2959                                                        
          Application 08/399,853                                                      


               1.  A device for detecting gaseous and vaporous components             
          of a gas mixture, comprising: channel means for defining                    
          optically perceptible reaction zones, said channel means                    
          including channels, each zone being inside a channel; a support             
          for said channels, each channel having a gas inlet and a gas                
          outlet for parallel gas flow, each of said channels having a flow           
          axis following a course of said channel; a scanning device having           
          a scanning section, at least two of said channels being arranged            
          to define an angle, not equal to zero, formed between said flow             
          axis1 and said scanning section, each of said channels being                
          located in a position with a channel portion covered by said                
          scanning section.                                                           
                                 THE PRIOR ART                                        
               The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of                
          obviousness are:                                                            
          May                          5,089,232         Feb. 18, 1992                
          Stark et al. (Stark)         5,397,538         Mar. 14, 1995                
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth                  
          paragraph, as being an improper dependent claim.                            
               Claims 1 through 13 and 15 through 17 stand rejected under             
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over either May or Stark.             
               Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper              
          Nos. 15 and 18) and to the answer (Paper No. 16) for the                    

               1 Although the term “said flow axis” in independent claims             
          1, 9 and 17 lacks a proper antecedent basis (an informality which           
          should be corrected in the event of further prosecution), its               
          context and the underlying specification indicate that it refers            
          to the respective flow axis of each channel forming the stated              
          angle.                                                                      
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007